Talk:Pop Rocks

Macgyver

Wasn't there an episode of Macgyver where he mixed Pop Rocks, Soda and Dry Ice to create a smoke screen distraction. Ahh Macgyver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.209.66 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but what purpose would the soda and pop rocks serve? Does the carbonation make the dry ice "smoke" fill up the space more rapidly? or produce extra "smoke"? Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Minutia

I believe that this brand has actually been bought and sold by various food companies in it's history. I'm pretty sure that it was owned by Rich Products for a while. ike9898 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

7-Up

I remember the rumor vividly and it was 7-Up and Pop Rocks. As it was a wild rumor, I am sure many variations appeared.

Patent date?

The article claims that the compound was patented in 1956, however the patent found in the citation was filed in 1980.

It might also be worth mentioning US Patent 4271206A Gasified candy having a predetermined shape which was filed in 1979 and granted in 1981, which seems to be another invention that made Pop Rocks happen. --Ted Mielczarek (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Internal Contradiction

Page says that the C02 is introduced and then fixed into the candy at 600 PSI. The next paragraph says that the pockets of C02 are at 60 atmospheres.

60 atm X (14.7 PSI)/atm ≈ 900 PSI 600 PSI / (14.7 PSI)/atm) ≈ 40 atm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akulkis (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The pressure of gas used during the manufacturing process is not necessarily the same as the pressure of the bubbles in the finished product. 69.63.56.54 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the description of the manufacturing process, it would seem unlikely that 40 atm CO2 trapped in the candy at elevated temperatures would, when cooled back down to room temperatures, give rise to pockets of CO2 at 60 atm. The ideal gas law would tend to make you think the pressure in the trapped bubbles would fall as temperature is reduced not rise. One also could consider the conservation of energy impact - gas at higher pressure would have more potential for doing work, yet removing heat (dropping temperature) leads to an increase in pressure? No wonder these things were pulled off the market - all the oil companies were worried about kids building perpetual motion machines with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The pressure inside a Pop Rock at body temperature would seem to be 437 psi based on:

• Manufacture at 300°F according to this page:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/question114.htm

• Calculation using the ideal gas law:

(600 + 14.7) * (460 + 98) / (460 + 300) - 14.7 = 437

Neglects shrinkage of the bubble size as the candy cools. - Ac44ck (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture references

I added a popular culture reference for Pop Rocks in That '70s Show. The reference has nothing to do with the myth of creating an explosive - is is about the use of Pop Rocks for sexual pleasure. The reference was subsequently deleted because it may be construed as "trivia". Popular culture references are not trivia. This reference also does not provide just another example of the urban myth - it references a totally different subject. I am re-adding the popular culture reference - please feel free to discuss this with me.

Blamesociety (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The list has grown yet again, and is about to be tagged for deletion because it *is* becoming a trivia section. Cultural references lists are not to be a simple list of when pop rocks are mentioned, as that is the defacto definition of a "trivia list". A couple of examples can be fine in such a list, but a large or exhaustive list (which this is rapidly becoming) is absolutely a trivia list. I will allow a few days to trim out, or trim back or tag myself, again. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • One more quick note: The mythbuster section, as well as the intro section are NOT trivia because they are not just a mention, but rather an explanation of how 'pop rocks' fits into pop culture. Additional "pop rocks were used in [x] for [x]" are trivial mentions. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think people come here just to check pop-rocks facts, as there's not much to say. I think that with a quirky subject like this one the readers will be after entertainment as much as encyclopaedic rigour. Please can't we have a bit of trivia in a trivial article? cojoco (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They were also parodied/referenced in a Kim Possible episode ("Rewriting History"), where Ron's favorite treat was an important key to solving the case. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Official Website" link

www.poprockscandy.com is not an "official website" in the sense one would generally take that to mean - it is run by a distributor, not the manufacturer or trademark holder. Assuming that poprockscandy.com is accurate about the trademark information, www.pop-rocks.com appears to be the website of the (U.S. ?) distributor, and www.zetaespacial.com would be the website of the manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.72.7 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

move to popping candy?

Should this be made into an article on popping candy instead of Pop Rocks? I'm sure I used to buy a different brand and to me it seems more sensible to have a general name instead of the brand. Think cola verses coca cola. Smartse (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop-up spam on reference page

The reference at Snopes.com is full of popups (every click results in two more) and I'm removing its link status until this changes. 207.81.112.36 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. If you have an issue with pop-ups, that's an arguably valid point, but a link to Snopes by no means qualifies as "spam". 68.94.210.60 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

pop rocks

pop rocks come in many diffrent forms.Thay probly don't add any air too (hot ,cold)water —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.64.95 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pop rocks may be fun too eat but from my resurch.History tells me that pop rocks DO NOT add air too(hot cold )water —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.64.95 (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Who owns/manufactures Pop Rocks now?

The article implies (at least within the "Background and history" section) that Pop Rocks (under that title) ceased existance in 1983/'85. However I'm relatively sure I remember having eaten them (when I was younger) from a package labeled 'Pop Rocks' and I was born in 1988. Also it appears as though you can still buy them under that name. See [1] and [2]. Perhaps someone would be able to provide information within "Background and history" as to who owns or manufactures "Pop Rocks" now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.109.10 (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue seems to have gone unresolved. I agree: the article does seem to suggest that Pop Rocks don't exist anymore, but they definitely do. I eat them every now and then even now. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation

I think the urban legend section of this article is becoming a little too trivia like. It is interesting to note that a myth existed about how eating pop rocks and drinking soda could make one's stomach explode, but there is so much minutia and examples of this myth in this section that it actually detracts from the article's purpose which is to explain the ins and outs of pop rocks. Another issue in this article are the citations used. Some parts of the article are not cited so as a reader we do not know where the author got his/her information from. I think the 2nd paragraph of the background and history section could use a citation in order to give background into who the manufacturers of pop rocks are and were. -- Fmb1219 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)